Should President Obama appoint Merrick Garland?

Konono said:
Okay, then it would be silly for Obama to do this, right?
Click to expand...
Not neccessarilly. We have a situation where the legislative branch is attempting to inject and enforce partisan politics into another independent branch of government. Anatta's argument that the Judicial branch of government wouldn't have a say in this if a suit is filled is beyond silly. Of course they would have a say.

It is actually the legislative branch that is establishing a dangerous precedent that would undermine the independence and objectivity of the Judicial branch of government. So why are partisan GOP supporters opposed to the Judicial branch deciding if or if not that the Legislative branch by not fulfilling it's duty to advise and consent has waived that right? What is wrong with the judicial branch adjudicating such a disagreement and why are those partisans on the right afraid of the Judiciary performing it's constitutional function in regards to a legal dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch? Annata's argument is senseless. It's partisan fantasy land stuff that has no relation to constitutional law.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No it is not. It has been a "nothing..no action...inactivity".

So if a reasonable amount of time goes by and the Senate does nothing what's to prevent The President from appointing Garland on the basis that the Senate has waived its right to advise and consent?
Click to expand...

Where have they declared that they're waiving the part of "advise and consent"?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You have still failed to address my point. Which is, if the President decides that the Senate has waived it's right to advise and consent on this appointment and moves forward and appoints Garland and the Senate disagrees how does the Senate stop the President?

Actually there hasn't. Nominations have been pulled in the past because the advise of the Senate is that the nominee was unsuitable but never has the Senate refused to have hearings on any nominee a President would propose were in new waters here.
Click to expand...

That's as inane a question as what if the Senate decides that the President waived a right of his??

The answer to that is neither branch gets to make that decision and you're just phising.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Why do you seem to be forgetting one itty-bitty part of that and it would be the "with the advice and consent of the Senate" section??
Click to expand...
You didn't read my post carefully. I'm saying that the POTUS claim by moving forward with Garland's appointment to SCOTUS is that the Senate, by refusing to do it's duty, has "WAIVED" that right to advise and consent on the appointment.

There is legal precedent for the legal waiving of rights by inaction. That's a fact. If POTUS were to make an appointment on such a basis the Senates only recourse would be to file a suit in federal court against POTUS. So what's wrong with that? Isn't that the role of the Judiciary?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That's as inane a question as what if the Senate decides that the President waived a right of his??

The answer to that is neither branch gets to make that decision and you're just phising.
Click to expand...
Good question and the same answer. Let POTUS file a federal suit against the Senate and let our independent judiciary decide as is outlined by the Constitution. Why are you afraid to have the Judicial branch of government perform it's Constitutional role?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How. What high crime or misdemeanor would have been committed? The President has a constitutional right to appoint a SCOTUS nominee with the advice and consent of the Senate. His claim in the argument would be that the Senate had waived their right to advise and consent. How would that be a high crime or misdemeanor?
Click to expand...

ftfy and please show me where in the Constitution it says he has the right to make that argument.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You need to read the Constitution again. POTUS has the Constitutional right to both nominate and appoint a SCOTUS Jusdice with the advice and consent of the Senate. Is there something about this you don't understand? You're argument on impeachment is ridiculous. Congress can only impeach a President for a high crime or misdemeanor. No such thing would have occurred if the POTUS has upheld his Constitutional duty and right. So you can take the impeachment fantasy land stuff off the table.

What are you afraid of by having an independent Judiciary make a decision on a valid Constitutional dispute between The executive branch and the legislative branch? Is this not the role of an independent judiciary as outlined by the Constitution?
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You didn't read my post carefully. I'm saying that the POTUS claim by moving forward with Garland's appointment to SCOTUS is that the Senate, by refusing to do it's duty, has "WAIVED" that right to advise and consent on the appointment.

There is legal precedent for the legal waiving of rights by inaction. That's a fact. If POTUS were to make an appointment on such a basis the Senates only recourse would be to file a suit in federal court against POTUS. So what's wrong with that? Isn't that the role of the Judiciary?
Click to expand...

He can CLAIM that he's a unicorn and farts rainbows; but it doesn't make it fact.

Show me the Constitutional clause that lays out the procedure that is to be followed, if the President doesn't get his way.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Good question and the same answer. Let POTUS file a federal suit against the Senate and let our independent judiciary decide as is outlined by the Constitution. Why are you afraid to have the Judicial branch of government perform it's Constitutional role?
Click to expand...

Because you appear to be trying to rewrite how this procedure is laying out in the Constitution.
Show me where it says Congress MUST do this and then show me where it says that the President can just take his ball and go home, when he's losing.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Where have they declared that they're waiving the part of "advise and consent"?
Click to expand...

When they announced that they were not going to perform their duties to advise and consent, Ma'am.
Turtle boy and his GOP senators are looking REALLY bad because of their stonewalling. Especially now that the President has picked a right of center moderate with an impeccable reputation.The senate republicans will pay for their partisan stupidity in November.
Hillary will pick the next justice anyway.
This is working perfectly.
Lol
 
Leonthecat said:
When they announced that they were not going to perform their duties to advise and consent, Ma'am.
Turtle boy and his GOP senators are looking REALLY bad because of their stonewalling. Especially now that the President has picked a right of center moderate with an impeccable reputation.The senate republicans will pay for their partisan stupidity in November.
Hillary will pick the next justice anyway.
This is working perfectly.
Lol
Click to expand...

So when Obama says he's not going to sign something, it means he's waived his responsibility.
HEY, I LIKE THIS IDEA. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top